Posted on 03/24/2010 5:08:26 PM PDT by LaybackLenny
Don’t kid yourself - the Repub leadership is like Boromir in Lord of the Rings - they are now lusting at the thought of taking over the health care ring of power and using it for their own purposes - after all, why should all of the good bribes and kickbacks go only to rats? There will be no effort to repeal or starve this monster - just an effort to take over the reins.
“Don’t kid yourself - the Repub leadership is like Boromir in Lord of the Rings - they are now lusting at the thought of taking over the health care ring of power and using it for their own purposes”
Unfortunately, I can’t say I disagree. Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and all the other usual suspects are only too capable of screwing things up. They almost need to be hounded as much as we did the Dems just to keep them halfway focused.
It’s quite a task to try to get a message out to enlighten the public and at the same time try to get certain squishes in our own party to shut up and sit still for five minutes.
Good for you. I wish more Freepers would do that.
I don't think we can continue with the present system or lack thereof.
I agree.
Although I am in favor of capitalism and free enterprise in general, I wonder if a profit-making industry should be in charge of our health care. Their profit necessarily comes out of our care.
Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Profit isn't the problem. In fact, profit can be part of the solution. If the industry is structured properly, profits create the incentive to deliver a better product or service.
The trouble with our system isn't profit per say, but with the incentives and the rules of the game that the government has set up.
Health care has gotten expensive enough to bankrupt people,
That's because people generally don't pay for their care. Someone else pays, which gives individals little to no incentive to shop around for the best deal. That, in turn, gives health care providers no incentive to innovate and find ways to deliver a better product at a lower cost.
The best evidence that this is a key to the problem is in the market for medical services that are generally not covered by health insurance. Take Lasic vision correction. The procedure has gotten less expensive over time. Same thing for cosmetic surgery. I could go on and on.
the insurance as constructed by the insurance industry is not working.
Yes, the other problem is that the employer-provided health "insurance" that most people have isn't insurance.
Insurance, properly so-called, is protection against unlikely but large, potentially ruinous financial risks that are difficult or impossible for an individual to plan for. It makes no sense to buy insurance against manageable or predictable expenses.
Yet most employer-based "insurance" policies cover small and predictable expenses. At the same time, they fail to protect you against the possibility that you might develop a medical condition that will cause you to have financially rouinous medical bills in future years. Most policies will only guarantee to cover medical costs in the current year or so long as you stay with the same employer.
Why do we have such a screwed up insurance system? It's not because of profits. Rather, it's because of the way our tax code is set up, which gives preferential treatment to employment-based "insurance" and penalizes people for buying real insurance on the individual market.
Also, many states have put in place insurance regulations that have made it either illegal or prohibitively expensive for insurance companies to offer catastrophic policies on the individual market, so consumers can't buy them.
The solution isn't to try to prevent insurance companies from making profits (which aren't that high to begin with), nor is it to have the government take over.
The solution is to change the tax code and insurance regulations so that we discourage misnamed employer-based "insurance" and instead encourage insurance companies to offer and people to buy true insurance on the individual market.
By "true insurance," I mean a policy that only covers the big, expensive things, and that offers protection against premium increases should you develop an expensive medical condition in the future.
The idea is to get people to buy into policies like this when they're young and healthy, so that should they get sick when they get older, they're protected. For people who were born with an expensive condition or developed one very early in life, we can create a subsidized high risk pool.
Ture health insurance policies like the one described above are actually available in some states. Unfortunately, Obamacare will make them illegal.
The Dem-Republican Good Cop-Bad Cop con routine is the longest running, most successful play of that con anywhere in the world.
The real game is DC versus Flyover Country. It does’nt come to an end until all in Flyover Country finally get it. IMHO, they are just starting to wake up.
Plus, the whole system encourages confusion and hassles, like the ones you try to explain. It's like the tax code. Too much information and an enormous pain in the backside that we shouldn't have to deal with and in fact have to hire professionals for.
Eventually we will have single-payer, walk-into-the-doctor's-office health care, and we might as well have the Republicans do it to keep the costs down and eliminate the Peter Singers' and Zeke Emanuels' take on human life.
Staying in business. The onerous state mandates and regulations they operate under would make their costs spiral out of control if they didn't carefully monitor their payouts.
Look, as has been mentioned time and time again in various sources, the profit margins in the health insurance industry are tiny, around 3%. It just barely covers their opportunity cost of capital.
This idea that they are reaping giagantic profits by leaving us lousy care is total nonsense.
Plus, the whole system encourages confusion and hassles, like the ones you try to explain.
GOP proposals would greatly simplify it.
Here's one. Instead of allowing you to buy a comprehensive policy from your employer with pre-tax dollars, you would be given a tax credit to purchase a catastrophic policy on the individual market.
To qualify, this policy would have to give you protection against premium increases in the future should you develop a medical condition, but it would only cover the big things. This would give you geniuine insurance, and it would be yours no matter where you work. It would protect you from financial ruin should your health seriously deteriorite.
ER visits for minor injuries, routine doctor visits, etc., would not be covered by your insurance. For that you'd open an interest-bearing medical savings account, to which you would be allowed to contribute dollars pretax. You'd be allowed to keep that money in your account as long as you like (currently you lose it if you don't spend it by the end of the year), but you'd only be able to withdraw without penalty to cover medical expenses.
State regulation of insurance would have to be overriden, obviously, as many states right now effectively prohibit catastrophic policies like the one above. To encourage competition, we would would allow people to buy their policies accross state lines. Insurance companies would tend to migrate to states that had the best regulations.
Eventually we will have single-payer, walk-into-the-doctor's-office health care,
I hope not, and it's not necessary. The choice need not be between single payer and the current system. There is a third way.
Everyone who's ever tried to deal with one of these companies has (1) their day ruined and (2) little chance of eventually getting what they need--all amounting to an unacceptable situation. The huge salaries of the executives, which Obama has now capped? That doesn't come out of our health care?
The Rube Goldberg contraption you describe is exactly what I'm talking about: You have one way of remedying one situation, another way to remedy another situation--all of it making headaches for a person who is already ill or injured.
Buying insurance across state lines does not improve the overall situation of health care. It just shifts the problem around. If you buy insurance from an Alabama company and you live in New York, somebody is going to have to pay the difference between what you get and what you owe the doctor.
I don't see why people should not at least consider an equitable system, with the cost savings that Obama/Pelosi/Reid have denied built into it. Tort reform, closed borders, better detection of fraud, and higher penalties for fraud, the smaller bureaucracy needed by a simplified system, and many others. These would actually reduce the cost of health care as a whole, not just give people the illusion of greater choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.